Winston Churchill is indisputably one of the greatest orators of all time. His speeches rallied nations, his voice was a constant during Europe's most terrifying conflict. He became a trusted force for justice and freedom in the world, and was regarded as such long after his term as Prime Minister had concluded. It was in this attitude that he delivered his speech, "The Sinews of Peace" only 8 months after WWII had ended. What impressed me so much about this address was the balance between all three persuasive appeals. Churchill employed them effortlessly, creating an airtight argument for his view of the world condition at the time.
He begins with a brief appeal to pathos, marking the short time since the war had passed before engaging in a thorough and well organized logical analysis of the state of world affairs. He speaks of the necessity of the world organization in guarding against war and tyranny. He states that the world needs a global armed force. He describes the situation in Eastern Europe dispassionately, stating facts with little to no leaning into pathos. He saves that.
Delicately, he implies that the success of the UNO depends on the success and influence of the U.S.'s treaties outside that order, appealing to his relationship to the country as the leader of it's former ally. He calls upon the U.S., as the foremost world power, to lead the world in freedom and liberty. He disavows his interest and ambition in world affairs saying, "any private ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams". He thus presents himself as an old and cherished friend, arrived to lend some advice near and dear to his heart.
And so, with logos and ethos carefully balanced, Churchill delivers his most poignant blow- War is not inevitable. It can be prevented. It could have been prevented if they'd listened to him before the last war. Hopefully, they'll listen to him now, and take his advice.
It's a brilliant construction to a cogent point. Only with the solid support of his relationship to the nation to whom he was speaking and the factual backing of the situation in Europe could he make the appeal for them to listen to him, or risk the end of the world as we know it.
I agree with your statement about the balance Churchill achieves within this discourse. In my initial reading of the speech, pathos was the first rhetorical strategy that stood out to me. But the appeal to emotion is only supported and strengthened by the logic and ethos incorporated.
ReplyDeleteI was torn as well as far as the most important persuasive methods of the speech. I agree with you Carson, even though I wrote about how he appealed to Pathos, its Churchill we are talking about. He set up the sensible logic and he got the UK through the dark hours of WWII, his resume spoke for itself.
Delete